Andrew Dunkley: Hello again and thank you for joining us.
This is a Q and A edition of Space Nuts. This
is where we stand in a queue and go,
ah. Or not. Um,
no, it's where we answer audience questions.
We've got questions today about weight
variations on Earth, depending on where you
are. Um, I know we've been down that road
before, but, um, we're going to do it again.
Uh, the age of the solar system has been
brought up again. Visiting, uh, another star.
Would we be able to do that anytime soon?
And Earth, uh, minus the moon. A what if
question that we have done a trillion times.
But, um, why not? Let's
reroute to that little, um, what if
scenario. That's all coming up on this
edition of space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
10, 9. Ignition
sequence start.
Professor Fred Watson: Space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: 5, 4, 3, 2. 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Andrew Dunkley: Space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: Astronauts report it feels good.
Andrew Dunkley: And he's back again to solve all your
riddles. It's Professor Fred Watson Watson,
astronomer at large. Hello, Fred Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: Hello, Andrew. I'm glad to be a
riddle solver.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, it's a good thing to do, even when you
can't. You can just pretend. That's what we
do all the time. I like the Q and
A edition. It gives us a chance to hear other
voices from around the world who listen to
us. And, um, sometimes we learn more about
them than we expect to. Like, um, Andy the
train driver in Sydney. And, uh, we've had
a few over the years. Rusty from Donnybrook,
one of our regular sender innerers. And,
um, Sandy in Melbourne and,
oh, gosh, um, and plenty
of others. Plenty, uh, of others. And if I
didn't name you, and I should have, I
apologise. Martin. We should not, not mention
Martin.
Professor Fred Watson: We've got pilots as well.
Andrew Dunkley: We have. We have Hannah.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
Andrew Dunkley: Haven't heard from her in ages, but I hope
she's well. Now, um, let's,
uh, maybe get to our first question.
Fred Watson.
This comes from dj.
DJ: Hi, guys. DJ from
Indianapolis, Indiana, usa.
You, in a recent podcast,
talked about how if
a person weighed a hundred kilogrammes
on the North Pole, that they would weigh
99 at the equator. My question would
be, if you were to take a submarine up to the
North Pole, you pop up through the ice, you
hop out with your bathroom scale,
stand on the ice and it says you
weigh 100 kilogrammes. You take that
same scale, drive the sub down
to, say, Ecuador, get out on the
beach, put your bathroom scale down and now
would it then say you weighed 99.
Or are bathroom scales
calibrated for,
uh, Earth's gravity at,
say, the equator? And it would say you
weighed 99 at the north
Pole too. Would you need
scientific instruments to tell the
difference? Or could a normal person with a
normal scale tell that they
weighed a kilogramme less at the pole than
they do at the equator? Thanks, guys.
Andrew Dunkley: All right, the first floor in. His question
is, putting the scales on sand
would probably completely mess him up. But
look, we know we get the gist. Um,
yeah. 100 kilogrammes on the North Pole. Same
set of scales at the equator. Or
Ecuador, 99 kilos. Does that sound about
right?
Professor Fred Watson: It is. It's perfectly right, yeah. Uh,
and it would show up on the scale. I mean,
bathroom scales are notoriously inaccurate.
They're not accurate to 1%.
Um, but, but if you did have a really
accurate scale and you can get them, um,
then it would show the difference. Uh, it
would be 100 kilogrammes, uh, on the pole,
99 at, uh, the equator.
Um, and that's because what
you're measuring your weight against is
something that doesn't change with
gravity, and that's the spring. Um, you know,
you're standing on something that's spring
loaded and the spring behaves the same. No
matter what gravitational field you're in, it
still exerts the same force force. And so it
will feel less weight from you at the
equator, uh, uh, than it does at, uh, the
poles. Now,
um, I think that's fairly common knowledge
that that happens, that you weigh less.
Probably most people don't realise that it is
actually 1%. It's almost exactly 1%, which is
a bit of a coincidence, uh, but it has
four sources, uh, not just one.
So the weight that
you feel are determined, uh,
by first of all, the Earth's gravity,
which is a property of the planet.
But then you've got the moon's, the sun's
gravity as well, pulling on you and the
moon's gravity too. And
then the thing that I think most people think
about is the centrifugal force, the fact that
the Earth is rotating and that gravity gives
you a centrifugal force that tends to lift
you a little bit.
Professor Fred Watson: Um,
Professor Fred Watson: and that's the case when you look at the
sun's gravity and the moon's gravity. They're
basically very, very
small, uh, and they tend to cancel out.
Anyway, uh, the
centrifugal force comes about
because on the equator, you're travelling at
1600 kilometres an hour, uh, eastwards,
and that Motion, because it's in a
curve, uh, has an acceleration
represented which cancels out a little bit of
the gravity. Uh, but the other one is
the Earth's gravity itself is different.
Even if the Earth was not rotating, there
would still be a difference at uh, the
equator, uh, uh, from the pole. And that's
because the Earth, uh, is not a perfect
sphere. It's what we call an oblate spheroid.
It's slightly flattened. So you're, I can't
remember how far it is, you're 30 kilometres
away or something like that, further away at
the equator, greater from the centre of the
Earth, uh, uh, than you are,
uh, the pole. Let me just, I can
do this in my head. Uh, it's actually
21 kilometres is the difference.
You're 21 kilometres further from
the centre of the Earth when you're on the
equator than you are at the pole. And that
means you're higher up until you feel
slightly less gravity. And when you add that
to the gravity change you get because of the
Earth's rotation, it comes to basically 1%.
Uh, so. Really? Yeah, quite, quite, um, um,
a nice calculation and also
quite a nice question from Vijay because
uh, or DJ I didn't quite catch which.
Uh, but good to hear from you in Indiana. Uh,
and it's a well directed question, uh, but
the answer is yes, you'd see on your bathroom
scale if it was accurate enough.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, uh, we took some bathroom
scales on a cruise ship once and um, yeah,
don't use them at sea. I weighed everything
from 60 to 190 kilos
in a matter of seconds.
Uh, it does remind me though of when I was a
kid. My dad was a pharmacist for his, almost
his entire career. And back then when
you didn't have scales at home or you know,
very few people did, you'd go down to the
chemist, uh, and you'd put, uh,
in Australia you'd put 20 cents in the slot
and stand on the scales and it would give you
an accurate weight. Wait, last time I used
one of those I was 11 stone.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, things are moving.
Andrew Dunkley: I still remember 11 stone. Now 11 stone,
um, doesn't mean much anymore.
Um, but I'll work it out.
Equals kilos
and the answer is 69.85 kilos.
Well, I weigh a little bit more than that
now.
Professor Fred Watson: Probably not that much more.
Andrew Dunkley: Um, about 15 kilos more.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: 11 stone back in the day. Yes, I was quite
proud of that. But uh, you don't see them
anymore, do you, those uh, scales out in
front of the pharmacies.
Professor Fred Watson: They used to be. You found them on railway
stations as well in Britain? I don't know
why.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, well, they used to have them at
railway, uh, stations for weighing packages
and things like that and post offices and
things. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
All right, dj, thanks for the question, but,
yeah, it's true. If you were to take a
submarine, pop up at the North Pole, put your
scales down and weigh 100, then go to
Ecuador and do the same thing, you'd weigh
99.
Um, now our next question, Fred Watson. Uh,
it comes from Nick, uh, who is in
Cambridge in the uk. He said Cambridge, the
UK one, just so we didn't get confused with
Cambridge in the United States. I assume
there'd probably be more than two. Um, now
he says, as you answered my previous question
so eloquently, I came back for a second
helping. We must have been rude. Wouldn't
have been you, Fred Watson. Uh, the solar
system is, uh, 4.6 ish billion
years old, but it formed from, uh,
material that is older. Are there any
estimates for how much older this
material is? And can this help us date any
supernovae that may have generated
it? Uh, or was the solar system formation
process so energetic that it reset isotope
ratios, uh, everywhere within the sun's
sphere of influence, much like heating rocks
above their Curie point, uh,
resets isotropic ratios. Thank you for the
enlightening enlightenment twice a
week. Uh, it keeps me relatively sane, if you
can believe it. Nick from Cambridge, the uk,
one, uh, I like. It's a
good question. A couple of questions in
there. So, yeah, um, I
like where he's going with this.
Professor Fred Watson: And it's one. I, um, think it's fair to say
that this is a question still on the front
line of research, um, because
when you look through the, you know, the
astronomical literature, you find a lot of
stuff about the
solar nebula. The solar nebula is a cloud of
gas and dust which, um,
basically the solar system was born in,
uh, by this process of gravitational
collapse. It collapses under
its own mass, um, and starts spinning and
you, the spinning produces a disc. So you've
got a hot ball of gas in the middle, which
becomes the sun, and this disc of rocky
material and gaseous material as well
swirling around it, which is the, um,
protoplanetary disc. Um, when you look at
papers, they nearly always
Professor Fred Watson: commenting, um,
Professor Fred Watson: on the contents of the solar nebula.
Just in terms of the mix of gases.
It's mostly hydrogen and helium with a few
pollutants, which are, uh, what eventually
made the rocky planets and the likes of us.
Um, but there's not that much work done on
uh, exactly the question that uh,
Nick is uh, asking. You know, can you
identify what supernovae
were? Uh, uh, the
remnants of their supernovae
explosions, uh, which
include heavy elements as well as the
hydrogen and helium. Can you identify the
dates of those supernovae? Now I have a
recollection of seeing some papers that
refer to evidence
in uh, meteoritic rock. I think uh,
that uh, suggests that some of the material
of the solar system dates from about 8
billion years ago. Remembering that the age
of the solar system is more or less 4.6
billion years, exactly as Nick says. Um,
and we know it actually a bit more accurately
than that, but that's the easy number to
remember. 4.6, 4.7 billion years.
Uh, so yes we do know it formed from material
that, that's older but I think it's turning
out to be quite difficult
science to actually detect that.
Um, and that may be
because of the second part of his question.
Although I suspect that the
isotope ratios were probably preserved
rather than destroyed as per the
Curie point. Um, I'm sorry, this
sounds like a waffly answer but I haven't
really been able to pin down much research on
this. There was a spacecraft that
was launched um, back in, I
think about 2001 that
uh, it was called Genesis and it was a
NASA, uh, experiment and the idea was to
catch particles of the solar wind and bring
them back to Earth. And the solar wind
is basically nuclei of gas,
they're mostly hydrogen, but you can also
detect any sort of pollutants. And in a
way what you're trying to do there's is
analyse remnants
of the cloud of gas and dust that form
the solar system. You're trying to analyse
traces of that gas and dust. And
it's uh, similar to what we do with comets.
We try and analyse comets to death because we
know they're pristine objects, they've never
been hot, they're just samples of
the solar nebula frozen
onto dust crystals. Uh, but
um, Genesis unfortunately had ah, a problem.
Um, the capsule that was sending
back this material actually um,
the one of the parachutes didn't open and so
it crashed at I think it was 200 kilometres
an hour. It hit the Earth and broke.
Um, so there was some contamination but I
think there was some research done on it but
I don't think they got to the real nub of the
matter. What's the, what's the solar
nebula made of? Um, I'll Keep looking
at this because it is a really interesting
one. And, um, um, you know, if we come
across any more definitive papers, we might
be able to give Nick a shout out later on.
Andrew Dunkley: So he's dug up a mystery, basically.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. He's come up with.
Andrew Dunkley: Come up with something we can't quite grapple
with.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right. Although I think, as I said,
you know, and unfortunately I've been able to
find the papers that I've read where it does
suggest that we've got evidence for
supernovae in the past, which are, uh, maybe
8 billion years ago, so nearly twice the age
of the solar system. But supernovae in the
environment that we are now in, um, which
would have contributed to the makeup of the
solar system? Good question.
Andrew Dunkley: It is fascinating. Thank you, Nick. We'll get
back to you shortly. This is Space Nuts with
Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson
Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: Step off the land now.
That's one small step for man,
one triumph leap for mankind.
Andrew Dunkley: Space Nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
Andrew Dunkley: And you're listening to a Q A edition.
And our, uh, next question comes from
Keith.
Keith: Hey, guys, this is Keith in
Vancouver, Washington, usa,
and I'm just curious about interstellar space
travel. How long do you think it's going to
take for a human to be able to reach
another star? It
seems fairly restrictive with
the distances involved and
you know, what kind of travel
it would take, be it
warp drive or
laser sail. But any, uh, just
curious what you guys think, how long it's
going to take for us to get there and how
realistic it's actually going to be if
anything will ever come of it.
Thanks, guys. Love the podcast.
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Keith. Great to hear from you.
There's another place that's not where we
would normally think it was. Vancouver. Like
you automatically go, oh, that's Canada. But
no, he's in the U.S. version.
Uh, yes, uh, but Keith, uh, that's a great
question. Um, I suspect it'll be a
spaceship before it is a human being
going to another star system, or another
star for that matter. Uh, the nearest one's
what, Proxima Centauri, which is
4.41 light years away. So,
uh, using conventional engines, you're
looking at a trip of over 6,000
years.
Professor Fred Watson: 60.
Andrew Dunkley: 60,000 years. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, well, you know, don't forget to take
some eggs, uh, because
they don't keep that long actually. But no,
they don't. It's,
it's a, ah, it's a difficult one and it sort
of goes back to what we were saying in the
previous episode with Elon Musk and, you
know, getting, um, you know, shooting around
all over the solar system, uh, or
all over the galaxy in the. In, um.
Professor Fred Watson: Um.
Andrew Dunkley: It's. It's not probably a high priority
at this stage and I, I think the day will
come where we'll be able to go faster.
But whether or not we can go fast enough to
make a trip to Proxima Centauri,
um, you know, reasonably quick,
uh, like at 99%
relativistic speed, it would
still take you
about three years, I think.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, well, it would. No, it must be more than
that because.
Andrew Dunkley: No, well, I'm talking. It'd take you
five. I worked it out, actually.
Professor Fred Watson: It would be. Yeah, at light speed, it takes
you 4.3. 4.4 years.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, and it. But you're right, you've got to
take
Andrew Dunkley: into account time dilation.
Professor Fred Watson: You do. You've got all of that thrown in as
well.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, and, uh, it's.
Yes, it's hard to envisage,
um, I mentioned in our, uh, last episode
something about some work I'd seen that
suggested that light sails weren't going to
be the answer for this. Because when you get
to high enough speeds, you get this drag,
uh, that actually slows you down and you've
just got to put so much energy into your
laser pointing at the light sails,
uh, that, um, it really
is probably not going to work very well.
Perhaps the nearest we've got to
seriously thinking about interstellar travel
has been the. What was it? Breakthrough
Starshot. Starshot, that's the one.
That project, which was a
feasibility study funded by
a Russian billionaire whose name was on
the tip of my tongue a minute ago, but has
now disappeared, as names tend to do. Milner.
Yuri Milner. That's his name.
Andrew Dunkley: There he is.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Um,
um. Breakthrough Starshot was feasibility
study to see whether we could, within
a kind of human lifetime, and I think they
were thinking of 20 to 30 years, get a
spacecraft to the vicinity of Proxima
Centauri, the nearest star. Uh, yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Now, interestingly, while you were talking, I
asked, uh, ChatGPT to work it out. And for
people on Earth, at
99%, uh, of light
speed travelling from Earth to Proxima
Centauri, it would be a, um,
4.3 year journey to get there.
However, when you take into account
time dilation, which becomes significant,
the people on board would only
age 7 months is what it's
saying. I think they're missing something.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. In, uh, that calculation, um,
it's probably not that
far Off. Yeah, it might not be just
thinking about.
Andrew Dunkley: So the Earth perspective is a 4.3 year
journey. The onboard travellers would
experience seven months.
Professor Fred Watson: It's critically dependent on how near the
speed of light you get to.
Andrew Dunkley: This uh, is at 99%.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes. Yeah. Uh,
so, yeah,
it's kind of roughly something like that. I'm
sure. I always used to use an example of
um, going to a star a thousand light years.
Sorry, a star 500 light years away. So you
make a thousand year journey as elapsed
on Earth and turns out that uh, I
think it's 99.99995% of
the speed of light. Uh, which is almost the
speed of light. But the people on board have
only aged 10 years. So you've got. In 10
years you've gone a thousand years into the
future on Earth.
Andrew Dunkley: Um, it's crazy, isn't it?
Professor Fred Watson: It's bizarre. Yeah, but, but the
physics. So I, you know, as I
said in last week's episode, I think to talk
about interstellar travel, certainly for
humans at the moment physics
just says no way, Jose. It's.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, my new book says otherwise.
Professor Fred Watson: But of course it does. Yeah, but that's.
You're in the real world of science fiction.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
Professor Fred Watson: Rather, rather than the artificial world of
uh, relativity.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. And just uh, to put Keith right in the
picture, um, you know, if you want to get
to light speed, we're a little bit behind at
the moment. Uh, the Parker solar probe
has currently uh, got the um, space
speed record of
0.064%
of the speed of light. So we're nowhere
near 1%. We're nowhere near
0.1%.
Professor Fred Watson: Is it 190 kilometres per second?
Andrew Dunkley: I think it is, yes, yes, give or take.
Um, that's as fast as we've ever been,
um, as a species.
But um, the day will come we'll get faster.
If we could achieve 2%,
um, that would make travelling to the outer
solar system so much quicker.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, it would, yes.
Andrew Dunkley: It would take, it would drop the travel time
to weeks.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Would be amazing. So, you know, we don't need
the speed of light yet, but
we do need to probably get a bit quicker. But
uh, yeah, it's an impossible dream at the
moment, Keith, I think would be the answer to
your question. But um, we won't
give up. I'm sure humanity will figure
out a way to do it at some stage.
Uh, but right now if we want to go anywhere,
we've probably got to build a spaceship big
enough for multiple generations to Live on.
By the time they get there, they'll go, can
anyone why we were coming here in the first
place? Like, this place is the pits. Why did
we come here?
Professor Fred Watson: Exactly.
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Keith. Great to hear from you.
Professor Fred Watson: 0G and I feel fine.
Andrew Dunkley: Space nuts now, final question comes from
Mark. I love this question because of the
first sentence. Am I the only person
to have watched Space 1999 back in
the 70s? No, you're not, Mark. I was a
huge fan. I loved that show.
Um, it, it was, uh, on.
It was a British show, British, uh, science
fiction TV programme that ran for two
seasons, 75 to 77.
Um, I watched it on Australian, uh,
television and uh, it follows
311 inhabitants of Moon Base
Alpha, which is hurtling uncontrollably into
space due to an explosion of nuclear waste
stored on the moon's far side.
And this is what's prompt Mark's question.
Uh, I clearly remember a big nuclear
explosion in that show. And next
thing, the moon and the inhabitants of the
moon of, uh, Moon Base Alpha are sent off on
their merry way into deep space, leaving the
Earth, uh, to wobble on its axis. On the
bright side, I do like to sail, so
I wouldn't have to worry about tides. So,
you know, that's pretty cool.
Um, what are your thoughts? P.S. i have
cracked, uh, the screen on my phone, so this
might not make much sense.
Keep, uh, doing what you're doing. It brings
me smiles. It brings a smile to my face. That
comes from Mark. Um, so, yeah, all right,
whatever reason, uh, but in this case it was
nuclear waste explosion that sent the, uh,
moon careening off into the heavens and
left Earth all on its lonesome.
Cause and effect. Um, what would be the
effect, uh, as
well, beyond the fact that the oceans would
be much calmer and you could sail quite
happily. Or would they? No,
No, I didn't think so.
Professor Fred Watson: No, I think it's the,
um, it's the currents
in the ocean and the atmosphere
itself that really dictate what's
happening to the surface of the ocean. The
tidal phenomenon is just a really low
frequency effect. Two high tides a
day. Um, and yes, it does
mean water's moving around.
But, uh, the main,
um, kind of source of motion in
the oceans, I think, are these currents that
we're concerned about because the atmosphere
is changing. Uh, oceans are warming up
and some of these currents are, uh,
forecast to possibly switch off, like the one
that's closest to my heart, because it's
where I grew up. But, uh, the Gulf Stream
Drift, which is a Current that comes up from
the. Basically the West Indies, uh,
and crosses the Atlantic and keeps Scotland
warmer than it otherwise would be. Uh,
um, and of course, western England as well,
and Ireland too. But it's why you can
find. When you look down the west coast of
Britain, you can find palm trees, uh, growing
in people's gardens because of that
phenomenon.
Andrew Dunkley: Floated over.
Professor Fred Watson: Something like that. Yeah. Um,
whereas without it, uh, we'd feel
very much more severe winters. Or they would
up there, because I'm now Australian, of
course. Yeah. Oka. Um, so
it's not going to do much to calm the ocean.
Uh, it would get rid of the tides. Um, it
might, as uh, Mark alluded
to in his question, make the Earth wobble on
its axis a bit more. But that would be over
timescales of tens of thousands of years. Um,
and we might be able to cope with that. But,
um, of course we'd miss it because the moon
is very romantic. And, um.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, it's a good thing to photograph
sometimes.
Professor Fred Watson: It's great. That's right. It's good to have.
Yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: It wouldn't make life impossible for us if
it.
Professor Fred Watson: No, it wouldn't. Um, it would change life,
definitely. But I mean,
especially the accelerations that it would
produce as it rocketed off into space
might certainly upset things here on Earth.
There'd be a gravitational influence on. That
could change the length of the day.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, that's a thought.
Well, um, you know, people working harder and
harder. You'd probably want the day to go
longer,
but I don't know. I don't know what would
happen. It could be interesting, though.
Professor Fred Watson: Well, it could, but, um, hopefully it's not
going to happen.
Andrew Dunkley: No. It is moving away from us though, Mark,
and it will. Yeah, it will
reach a certain distance and then that'll be
it. It'll stop. It's not going to keep going
away.
Professor Fred Watson: That's correct.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. But, um. But at the moment we're
stuck with it. Um, that big grey rock that
just sort of looms over us and looks
pretty and, um, lights up the night.
Professor Fred Watson: It's great.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes. May soon have a colony on it. Ben's
really thrilled about that.
Professor Fred Watson: I don't mind a permanent presence, but, um,
the idea of, you know, settling on the moon
is, uh.
Andrew Dunkley: That's Elon's goal now he's given up on Mars.
Professor Fred Watson: Well, yeah, no, he's talking about Mars as
well in the.
Andrew Dunkley: Oh, I know. With the latest. That's the
latest he's still got. Yeah. But I think
he's decided we'll Go to the moon first and
we'll see how we go there. Yeah, Bit worried
about flushing toilets, but we'll figure that
out.
Uh, Mark, thank you. That's a great question.
Lots of fun and, yeah, space 1999,
probably one of the shows that really
switched my brain onto science fiction and I
haven't let go of it. Terrific show.
Uh, that brings us to the end. But if you do
have questions or comments for us, please
visit our website because we'd love to hear
from you. Uh, and if you've thought about
sending in a question and just never got
around to it, well, get around to it.
SpaceNutsPodcast.com SpaceNuts
IO are our URLs because
we got a 2 for 1 package and you can just
press the AMA button at the top, which means
ask me anything and send us your audio or
text questions. Don't forget to tell us who
you are and where you're from. We always like
to know. We've got people all over the place,
but more listeners in Iceland than anywhere.
We're number one in Iceland.
Professor Fred Watson: Woohoo.
Andrew Dunkley: It's very exciting. Um, but I think we're
number two in Australia and number something.
Number nine in America or something.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, Number five in the uk. I noticed number
five in the uk.
Andrew Dunkley: What happened to the other two people, I
wonder? Anyway, um,
Fred Watson, we've reached the end. Thank you
so much.
Professor Fred Watson: Great pleasure, Andrew. Always good fun.
Andrew Dunkley: And, uh, thanks to Huw in the studio, who
couldn't be with us today, which is why we're
number two in Australia instead of number
one. He just never listens. And from me,
Andrew Dunkley, thanks for your company.
We'll see you on the next episode of Space
Nuts. Bye Bye.
You've been listening to the Space Nuts
podcast, available at
Apple, Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
player. You can also stream on
demand@bytes.comm this has been another
quality podcast production from
bytes.com.